ufs snapshot help

RW rwmaillists at googlemail.com
Fri Apr 24 17:28:22 UTC 2015

On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 09:49:32 -0500 (CDT)
Valeri Galtsev wrote:

> On Fri, April 24, 2015 6:38 am, RW wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 14:00:36 -0500 (CDT)
> > Valeri Galtsev wrote:
> >
> >>
> >
> >> Once (a while ago) I noticed Linuxes have started in addition
> >> to /tmp using /var/tmp,
> >
> > FreeBSD has always had /var/tmp. It's perfectly sensible, file
> > in /tmp don't need to survive a reboot, those in /var/tmp do.
> Functionality wise, yes. Security/robustness wise, no. Well, one can
> have both by creation of yet another partition and mounting it
> as /var/tmp. Then regular user will not be able to just fill up /var
> (through /var/tmp) thus stopping logs being incremented, preventing
> daemons being started (the ones that need to write their PID
> into /var/run) etc.

But FreeBSD has /var/tmp, it's had it since the beginning, it's
certainly not a Linuxism. I don't recall it ever being a separate
partition in a default install, or the handbook suggesting that it
might be one. If Linux is brain-dead for having it in /var then FreeBSD
is too.

FreeBSD, by default, reserves 8% of space for root so filling up /var
with user files doesn't stop most daemon from starting and most are
started at boot anyway. Filling-up /tmp or /var/tmp can create worse
problems for daemons than filling-up /var.

FWIW back in the 1970's the original reason for having a /usr/tmp was to
keep user files out of /tmp altogether.

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list